From the “new political moment,” as the Rodrigato—the de facto government of the Rodríguez brothers—described it, Venezuela quickly moved to “a new moment for justice.” To the crisis caused by the progressive dismantling of the constitutional order, the rule of law, and democracy, which emerged after Hugo Chávez came to power, another twist has been added in the justice system as a consequence of the power reconfiguration being carried out by the Rodrigato in the name of reconciliation. The judiciary is once again in the crosshairs, this time amidst pressure from the US protectorate, which, as happened with the Attorney General’s Office and the Ombudsman’s Office, sets in motion the search for an outcome that serves the Trump-Rodríguez relationship.
The judicial reform offered the first warning of what is to come. Following a discretionary and revictimizing administration of freedoms under the amnesty law, on April 23, Delcy Rodríguez, accompanied by her ministers, the heads of all branches of government, and members of the so-called coexistence program, announced the end of this instrument, claiming that it had achieved its reconciliation goals. Reaffirming what had been previously denounced about this law, it has always been a legal mirage that allowed the State to manage the freedom of detainees in order to mitigate diplomatic pressure and gain international legitimacy, while maintaining intact the coercive structures that gave rise to the detentions. Rodríguez’s intervention, beyond blatantly undermining the legal order, sets a dangerous precedent by increasing the vulnerability of victims and creating legal uncertainty within the justice system.
The amnesty process began, unfolded, and has threatened to conclude, generating widespread abuses and violations of the population’s rights. Representatives of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, after being expelled, had been invited to the country in February to verify the ongoing releases from prison. As denounced on March 16 by the High Commissioner, and as of today, the de facto government has never provided official lists nor allowed the OHCHR team access to detention centers. Following this manipulation of an international body, led by an “interim” president who unilaterally decided to nullify a law she touted as crucial, it is understandable why more than 600 political prisoners in Venezuela continue to suffer ill-treatment and/or torture, not counting those who remain forcibly disappeared. The Rodrigato is an extension of Maduro’s regime, with new faces rearranging themselves in pursuit of the only thing they know how to do: feign to buy time.
Along with the closure of the amnesty process, Delcy Rodríguez announced the creation of the Commission for the Great National Consultation on Criminal Justice Reform. This proposal arises amidst the co-optation of the judiciary, the erosion of the rule of law, and a policy of political persecution that has resulted in crimes against humanity through the instrumentalization of the repressive and punitive apparatus. Rebuilding a state independent of the executive branch and autonomous in enforcing the Constitution remains the historical debt of Chavismo-Madurismo, but the practices that support it point toward the opposite objective. Simultaneously, a process for submitting candidates to the judicial nominations committee was opened to proceed with the selection of new Supreme Court justices (TSJ), without any official list of retirements or resignations of justices having been announced to date, which already indicates the irregularity of the process.
If the de facto government wants to pave the way for the democratic reinstitutionalization of the country, it must ensure a transparent, participatory selection process based on the professional merits of the new TSJ justices. This did not occur in the appointment of the heads of the Ombudsman’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office. In this regard, we share the reflections of the organization PROVEA, which warns of the danger that “the announced judicial reform is solely geared towards satisfying the agenda of transnational oversight, and that it disregards the necessary participation of the country’s social and political actors, such as academia, NGOs, the voices of victims, and the technical advice of international human rights organizations.” Otherwise, justice in Venezuela will continue to be a tool of persecution and systemic impunity.
With Maduro’s “extraction”, Secretary Marco Rubio stated that the action plan for Venezuela consisted of three stages: stabilization, recovery, and transition. While he later clarified that these stages could overlap, we anticipated at the time that, although this framework made pragmatic sense, it relegated redemocratization from the outset to a situation of significant dependence on other, unscrupulous processes. Therefore, we suggested that the urgent priority should be to transfer the reins to the opposition of July 28th and to other actors, including civil society, in order to create conditions for a controlled negotiation environment that would lead to solid and lasting agreements for a democratic transition. Time has shown that stabilization is indeed underway, but not for the benefit of the country, rather for the benefit of the de facto government. This situation continues under the protection of a tutelage that builds alliances with the regime to mutually benefit its political and economic interests.
The international community cannot condone the superficial restructuring observed in Venezuela, which is being carried out on the ashes of neglect and impunity. Without coherent opposition leadership and prominent international actors, it will be more difficult to influence the smooth trade flow of the Trump-Rodríguez partnership.